Thesis (DPhil (Ancient Studies))--University of Stellenbosch, 2008. / Since time immemorial and throughout the centuries up to the present, the struggle between Good and Evil has played a cardinal role in the “cultural web” of mankind. In the various religions, this dimension of life is linked to the theological issue of human suffering and need in the light of Divine Omnipotence and Grace. Some of the earliest prophets/compilers/authors expressed their own perspectives on this ongoing conflict and burning question. This comparative research stems from a statement by the well-known Iranologist, Mary Boyce. She described the origin of the Christian faith as a new religion that developed out of Judaism, enriched by contact with the old Persian religion, Zoroastrianism. Other researchers also described various aspects of the dualism, eschatology, angelology and demonology, as well as the cosmogony and purity laws, as “obvious” similarities. However, researchers have not yet reached consensus on the possible influence exercised by Zoroastrianism on Judaism and the early Christian writings. The aim of the study is to make a contribution to the ongoing debate from another perspective. Writings from the religions are juxtaposed in full, and analysed and compared according to the war theme and components arising from the writings themselves. A holistic approach offers a more structured starting -point for further research rather to opposing aspects randomly from a large variety of texts. The holistic approach draws attention to similarities as well as differences. Keywords out of each analysis of a component have been placed in a framework to present the summarising comparison more compactly. Historical and literary contexts play an important role in a comparative study. The writings of the three religions originated in four major eras: the Bronze Age/the Sasanian Period, the Hellenistic Era and the Roman Era. The characteristic dualism of Zoroastrianism is limited to the eschatological/apocalyptic war as it is found in the Gathas of Zarathustra. References are also made to the “later” apocalyptic writing, the Bahman Yasht. The most relevant writing in the Judaism (Qumran) is the War Scroll. Richard Bauckham has described Revelations as the “Christian War Scroll”. The analysis of the various aspects shows that core principles in the religions underlie the war themes. Some of the proper names contain defining elements in the determination of dualism and monotheism. Planning and weapons are main components in the strategy of the war - the “revelation” of the modus operandi. The eschatology is caught up in the ultimate end of the war. In the final chapter, the main corresponding elements are placed on a “scale” and “weighed”. Although no further “lexical links” – the weight-bearing criteria of García Martínez – have been found in this study, the amount of corresponding aspects in merely one text per religion is significant. Differences and unique imagery/symbolism put each writing in its own time-slot and framework.

The aim of this study is to evaluate Malina&Pilch’s Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation. As stated on the cover of the book, this commentary claims to be unique: “The first social-science commentary on this extraordinary book.” The question is whether the social-scientific method enhances the understanding of Revelation for modern interpreters? The method’s relationship with traditional exegetical methods is also examined. In order to evaluate any work on Revelation, it is necessary to make a thorough study of the apocalyptic. Revelation is an apocalypse and is traditionally understood as part of the apocalyptic genre. It is also necessary to make use of findings of the historical-critical method in order to understand questions regarding the author, date and place of composition of Revelation. The social-scientific method’s presuppositions and procedures are explained, as well as criticism against this exegetical method. This is followed by a discussion of Malina&Pilch’s commentary as part of the Social-Science Commentary on…-series, as well as Malina’s original work, On the Genre and Message of Revelation. It is clear that Malina&Pilch view Revelation as astral prophecy and John as an astral prophet. They interpret Revelation in the light of the first century Mediterranean sky. A case study of Revelation 12:1-18 compares Malina’s On the Genre and Message of Revelation, with Malina&Pilch’s Social-Science Commentary on Revelation and David Aune’s Revelation. In conclusion academic reviews and comments regarding this commentary are discussed. It is my opinion that this commentary adds the best value if it is used together with traditional historical-critical commentaries. Unfortunately, Malina&Pilch has ignored modern Apocalypse scholarship in their work. Their intense focus on astrology and trying to force the whole of Revelation into an astrological mould is the greatest weakness of this work. This commentary however definitely adds a new dimension to the interpretation of Revelation. It forces an interpreter of Revelation to acknowledge the importance of John’s social situation and the first-century Mediterranean world. / Dissertation (MA (Biblical Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Biblical and Religious Studies / MA / unrestricted